By the ending chapters, Frediani’s mental state was questioned. We had discussed multiple times in class about a personality disorder Frediani could have but it was never mentioned this in the book until the last few chapters. Something that I have previously seen on an episode of Law & Order was a man who was a retired professional football player that was very famous. There was a young girl by the age of 14 who was forcibly being pimped out men willing to pay money for her services. This man was caught paying her for this. In the eyes of the law, he was said to of raped her because of her age. However, the next day he was unaware of his actions. The insanity plea is extremely hard to come across due to people pretending to be insane to get away with murder. Many psychological reviews must be performed to be diagnosed. Obviously, the jury did not believe that he was ill. He himself was too proud to admit he was sick as well. It was not until the end of the trial where his defense lawyer had him on the stand at a late night court arrangement where he exhibited the defendants sundowning affect.What really stuck out to me in this episode was the defense lawyer saying a latin phrase that meant, the body can only be guilty if the mind is as well”. The poor judgement displayed by this man was not of his choosing but rather by his diseased brain. This made me relook at Frediani’s case and wondered if they had had a psychological review of him, would they have diagnosed him with an illness. The causes for these diseases truly vary but should a person be held accountable for their actions when their ability to choose from right and wrong is compromised? I’m not sure.
The next connection to Frediani’s case I made was a another episode of Law & Order. I love this show. Anyways, there was a young child that was an outcast of his school because his family was considered gypsies. He was found murdered one day when he walked home from school but all the clues were pointing to the wrong person. Once her friends gave up her secret, this young girl, most likely 15 years old, admitted to murdering the young boy by strangulation with his scarf. The most stunning thing was at the end when the investigator asked her why she did it. Her response was “why not”? This is a very clear indication of no remorse and it is deviance and crime at the age of 15 which is a necessary requirement for the disorder, Antisocial personality disorder.
The idea that a child so young can commit such a heinous crime is unthinkable. I was very curious how a court room will handle such a case because the murderer is not an adult. The story of Jordan Brown was shocking to the world. How does a child that shows no signs of aggression murder a woman and her unborn baby? According to this video, a child’s brain is not fully developed at this age, especially the part about decision making and impulse. For this reason, the death penalty will no longer be an option for an child under the age of 18. Below is a Picture of him at the age of his conviction.
Some unwanted qualities can come with the job of being a defense attorney– especially if the attorney believes his/her client is in fact guilty of the crime they are charged with. However, like we have seen so far in Pointing From The Grave, the difference between what the defendant did, and what the prosecutor can prove is the ultimate decider in criminal cases. Throughout the history of our justice system many high profile cases that have made their way to national television have solidified the notion that sometimes guilty people can get away with murder if their attorney proves beyond a reasonable doubt that his/her client didn’t do as they are charged. For example, in the O.J. Simpson case, his “dream team” of Lawyers at some point in the case probably realized that they were representing a man who probably committed the double murder he was being charged with. However, even though their defense wasn’t that strong, they found ways to make the prosecution’s attack on Simpson seem less credible than it was. How hard do you think it is for a lawyer to successfully draft up a defense for a client that for the most part actually committed the crime? Do you think there are an ethical boundaries that he/she must face if they chose to accept an example of such a case? At the end of the day, being a lawyer is still a job. People earn a living representing people and I think that if defense attorneys keep this “ethical dilemma” in their minds then they will not be able to do their job correctly.
In most every case we see in our court system, if the defendant can afford a lawyer, they do so because they feel as if they have no chance in winning unless they pay for the service. However, in the case of murder, the questions of whether the lawyer knows if his client is guilty or not questions the moral compass of the lawyer. Should it bother the lawyer that they are defending a person guilty or rape, murder, embezzlement etc. ? In my opinion, it takes a certain mindset to do this job. The person in law schooling interested in becoming a defense lawyer has to be aware of the moral decisions he must make in his profession. I am not implying that these decisions are going to ever be easy or morally correct but this is what the profession brings. If a person can handle these situations than it might make them an excellent defense lawyer.
However, a hired defense lawyer’s obviously have a choice to let go of the client but if its a public defender they have no choice. Public defenders are assigned to a case and usually have to stay. It is part of a lawyers duty as a job to do what is best for their client, so they cannot try to give up the case. It is like gambling, the lawyer has to take the best shot at the case and it is for his own reputation as well as the well being of his client.
Another interesting suggestion I thought of was what if they client admits they are guilty but could be lying to the lawyer. There have been many cases where people try and take the rap for a loved ones bad doings so that they do not spend the rest of their life in jail. For example, a parents who knows his child committed homicide. In this case, it also doesn’t seem beneficial for the defense lawyer to know whether they are guilty or innocent. Even if they get an answer, it could be a lie in either direction. Over all, it is the side that makes the strongest case for the conviction. The way evidence is presented to the jury is a huge aspect of how the verdict comes out. Stronger evidence such as DNA, has become extremely useful in our court systems today. They knowledge of DNA has also broadened due to it being taught during primary schooling and the fact that it is all over crime shows. The awareness of it has grown which makes it more difficult for a murder/ rapist to get away with their crime.
In this chapter, we are now clear that Frediani is guilty. Some have their doubts about this reality, but the probability of his guilt is much higher than that of his innocence. This makes me wonder, if the defense attorney knows his or her client is guilty, do you think they lack morality in a sense that they are defending a guilty man. It is vague to me of what a defense lawyer really wants. Is it money or justice. It is likely that Frediani’s lawyer knew he was guilty via the evidence the prosecution presented. Does this make the lawyer any less of a person. Socially, would it be normal for people to assume that one trying to defend a convict is just as guilty. With this thought in mind, I feel hate and anger would be present toward that defense attorney.
” I said something along the lines of, ‘This looks very promising, but for it to be used in court, we have to pass the Frye standard.’ I outlined the possible weaknesses, as I saw them; validation of the statistics, standards for matches, all the things that seemed pretty apparent to us. I thought I had given a nice talk about what would have to be done, when this woman from the Orange County crime lab stood up and said, ‘This kind of talk is dangerous. You shouldn’t be saying these kinds of things in public. Defense lawyers might find out about this and use it’ ” -Weinberg 192
I think that this attitude from forensic scientists says a lot. Firstly, I think that it shows the bias that at the time forensic scientists had towards defendants in general: they strove to prove them guilty. This statement from this woman shows that she and forensic scientists as a community were most likely to be on the side of the prosecution. This is even proven after Weinberg points out that the DNA testing was never done blind, and so forensic scientists were basically giving their own personal verdicts to the prosecution and courts.
This attitude is very alarming to me personally, because I consider myself a scientist also. It worries me to think that other scientists would inject their own opinions and biases into evidence and use science as a means to an end. For me, science and the discovery of new things should come from and be used as a way to make everyone’s lives easier and more efficient, not to meet one’s own personal agenda. It is also alarming to think that these labs and the courts were not monitoring the DNA testing, so that it would be blind. Weinberg even mentions that a scientist who studied the DNA of birds could’t even imagine doing her experiments unblinded. If birds are monitored so closely, why weren’t humans? Are they not more important and aren’t the implications more drastic? I feel as though this situation was almost a breach of ethics.